[REVIEW]: MQT Core: The Backbone of the Munich Quantum Toolkit (MQT) #7478

editorialbot · 2024-11-13T20:25:10Z

Submitting author: @burgholzer (Lukas Burgholzer)
Repository: https://github.com/munich-quantum-toolkit/core
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: v3.0.0
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewers: @1ucian0, @edyounis, @josh146
Archive: 10.6084/m9.figshare.28740254.v1

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c90c6b84d6b4227af9d7219c51a9410a"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c90c6b84d6b4227af9d7219c51a9410a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c90c6b84d6b4227af9d7219c51a9410a/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c90c6b84d6b4227af9d7219c51a9410a)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@1ucian0 & @edyounis & @josh146, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @danielskatz know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @1ucian0

📝 Checklist for @josh146

📝 Checklist for @edyounis

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2024-11-13T20:25:14Z

Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-11-13T20:25:43Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1109/TCAD.2020.3032630 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-79837-6_14 is OK
- 10.23919/DATE54114.2022.9774631 is OK
- 10.1109/QCE52317.2021.00037 is OK
- 10.1109/ASP-DAC47756.2020.9045153 is OK
- 10.1109/ASP-DAC52403.2022.9712555 is OK
- 10.1109/DAC18072.2020.9218563 is OK
- 10.1145/3394885.3431590 is OK
- 10.1109/TCAD.2022.3197969 is OK
- 10.1109/QCE49297.2020.00051 is OK
- 10.1145/3505636 is OK
- 10.22331/q-2020-06-04-279 is OK
- 10.1109/VLSID57277.2023.00068 is OK
- 10.1145/3400302.3415622 is OK
- 10.1109/TCAD.2022.3182628 is OK
- 10.23919/DATE51398.2021.9474135 is OK
- 10.23919/DATE51398.2021.9474034 is OK
- 10.1145/3530776 is OK
- 10.1109/ASP-DAC47756.2020.9045711 is OK
- 10.1145/3394885.3431604 is OK
- 10.1109/DAC18072.2020.9218555 is OK
- 10.1109/QCE57702.2023.00095 is OK
- 10.1145/3489517.3530480 is OK
- 10.1145/3566097.3567932 is OK
- 10.1109/JETCAS.2022.3202204 is OK
- 10.1145/3593594 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2405.08810 is OK
- 10.1109/QCE57702.2023.00039 is OK
- 10.1088/2058-9565/ad33ac is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2311.14164 is OK
- 10.1145/3566097.3567929 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2012.13966 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-15699-1_1 is OK
- 10.1109/ISCAS45731.2020.9180791 is OK
- 10.1109/QSW62656.2024.00013 is OK
- 10.1145/3491246 is OK
- 10.1007/978-981-15-6401-7_43-1 is OK
- 10.23919/DATE51398.2021.9474236 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-11-13T20:26:10Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.17 s (1657.4 files/s, 333624.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                            120           3917           1474          27688
C/C++ Header                    84           2025           2159          11392
Python                          16           1011           1719           2172
CMake                           32            218            219           1125
Markdown                        14            327              0            837
YAML                            13             50             44            586
TeX                              2             37              0            318
TOML                             1             43              7            254
JSON                             3              0              0            185
HTML                             1              0              0             76
CSS                              1              4              2             47
JSON5                            1              0              1             37
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           288           7632           5625          44717
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   951	Lukas Burgholzer
   403	burgholzer
   329	dependabot[bot]
   121	Tom Peham
   116	pre-commit-ci[bot]
    76	Yannick Stade
    55	Stefan Hillmich
    34	renovate[bot]
    14	Thomas Grurl
    14	pehamTom
     7	Aaron Sander
     6	Martin Fink
     4	HartwigB
     4	github-actions
     4	lsschmid
     3	Berti Florea
     2	33Gjl1Xe
     2	Katrin
     2	Parham Rahimi
     2	Rebecca Ghidini
     2	TeWas
     2	Tianyi Wang
     1	Christoph Pichler
     1	Damian Rovara
     1	Elias Leon Foramitti
     1	Hartwig
     1	JoachimMarin
     1	Roope Salmi
     1	Sarah
     1	Thomas
     1	TobiasPrie
     1	p41540

editorialbot · 2024-11-13T20:26:16Z

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 623

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot · 2024-11-13T20:26:19Z

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot · 2024-11-13T20:26:43Z

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

danielskatz · 2024-11-13T20:29:15Z

@1ucian0 & @edyounis & @josh146 - Thanks for agreeing to review this submission.
This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As you can see above, you each should use the command @editorialbot generate my checklist to create your review checklist. @editorialbot commands need to be the first thing in a new comment.

As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#7478 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if either of you require some more time. We can also use editorialbot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@danielskatz) if you have any questions/concerns.

josh146 · 2024-11-14T18:38:11Z

Review checklist for @josh146

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/cda-tum/mqt-core?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@burgholzer) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1. Contribute to the software 2. Report issues or problems with the software 3. Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

danielskatz · 2024-11-24T14:53:00Z

👋 @josh146 - thanks for getting started - is there anything blocking your progress (other than time)?

danielskatz · 2024-11-24T14:53:41Z

👋 @1ucian0 & @edyounis - Can you also create your checklists (see #7478 (comment) for instructions) and get started with your reviews? Thanks.

1ucian0 · 2024-11-27T14:18:57Z

Review checklist for @1ucian0

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/cda-tum/mqt-core?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@burgholzer) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1. Contribute to the software 2. Report issues or problems with the software 3. Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

1ucian0 · 2024-11-27T16:50:53Z

As a reviewer, I would like to declare a potential conflicts of interest. I have code merged in repositories related to MQT:
https://github.com/pulls?q=author%3A1ucian0+org%3Acda-tum

All my interaction with Technical University of Munich had been as part of my work in Qiskit (MQT is a dependant of Qiskit). I personally think the level of interaction is small and, therefore, I request a waiver for the COI.

danielskatz · 2024-11-27T16:59:24Z

👋 @1ucian0 - thanks for letting us know about this. I agree that this is technically a conflict, but also agree that we can waive it, given the details as you mention above.

1ucian0 · 2024-11-27T17:05:53Z

While not mandatory, it is a usual practice to have a header about the license in the files affected by it. Currently, the files do not have this header. Is it an official policy about it?

1ucian0 · 2024-11-27T17:22:30Z

Contribution and authorship: [...] Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

While @burgholzer is the clear main maintainer of the software, I was unable to find @robertwille in the history. Additionally, @ystade seems to have been contributing significantly in the last year. I think the paper could benefit on clarifying the author contributions and the criteria for inclusion.

burgholzer · 2024-11-28T17:33:29Z

While not mandatory, it is a usual practice to have a header about the license in the files affected by it. Currently, the files do not have this header. Is it an official policy about it?

I'd be happy to add license headers to the project. Certainly does not hurt.

@danielskatz what's the formal procedure for updating the code for the JOSS submission here?
Tracking issue and subsequent pull request over in mqt-core and, afterwards, merging into or rebasing the branch for the JOSS submission?

burgholzer · 2024-11-28T17:48:13Z

Contribution and authorship: [...] Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

While @burgholzer is the clear main maintainer of the software, I was unable to find @robertwille in the history. Additionally, @ystade seems to have been contributing significantly in the last year. I think the paper could benefit on clarifying the author contributions and the criteria for inclusion.

You are definitely right, and I think it would be a good idea to update the author list for this submission. Given his significant code contributions over the past year, I would like to add Yannick to the middle of the author list.
Robert is included in the author list based on his substantial impact in shaping mqt-core and the research methods that have been developed as part or on top of mqt-core. Despite not showing up in terms of commits, the countless discussions are very much reflected in the code as it stands and the software would not exist without his support.

Edit: I'd also be happy to add a short paragraph clarifying the inclusion of authors to the paper.

@danielskatz Similar question to above: Do I simply update the joss-paper branch with the updated metadata?

danielskatz · 2024-11-30T01:08:55Z

@burgholzer - yes, you just update the paper content, and since we're in the middle of the review, make clear to the reviewers what changes you are making so they can factor that into their ongoing reviews.

danielskatz · 2024-11-30T01:09:17Z

@burgholzer - and this goes for the code as well...

danielskatz · 2024-11-30T01:10:45Z

👋 @edyounis - please go ahead and get started on your review when you have the chance - see above for instructions on generating your review checklist.

edyounis · 2024-12-02T10:52:17Z

Review checklist for @edyounis

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/cda-tum/mqt-core?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@burgholzer) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1. Contribute to the software 2. Report issues or problems with the software 3. Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

burgholzer · 2024-12-02T13:44:25Z

Contribution and authorship: [...] Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

While @burgholzer is the clear main maintainer of the software, I was unable to find @robertwille in the history. Additionally, @ystade seems to have been contributing significantly in the last year. I think the paper could benefit on clarifying the author contributions and the criteria for inclusion.

You are definitely right, and I think it would be a good idea to update the author list for this submission. Given his significant code contributions over the past year, I would like to add Yannick to the middle of the author list. Robert is included in the author list based on his substantial impact in shaping mqt-core and the research methods that have been developed as part or on top of mqt-core. Despite not showing up in terms of commits, the countless discussions are very much reflected in the code as it stands and the software would not exist without his support.

Based on the above, I added Yannick as a co-author in munich-quantum-toolkit/core@3481566

burgholzer · 2024-12-02T20:26:04Z

While not mandatory, it is a usual practice to have a header about the license in the files affected by it. Currently, the files do not have this header. Is it an official policy about it?

I'd be happy to add license headers to the project. Certainly does not hurt.

Added license headers to the files in munich-quantum-toolkit/core@c606fc0 and merged the latest main branch into the joss-paper branch in munich-quantum-toolkit/core@e84b179

danielskatz · 2025-03-19T17:16:46Z

👋 @burgholzer - note that this is now waiting for you to take the last steps before acceptance and publication

danielskatz · 2025-03-24T16:53:02Z

👋 @burgholzer - note that this is now waiting for you to take the last steps before acceptance and publication

burgholzer · 2025-03-24T21:16:20Z

👋 @burgholzer - note that this is now waiting for you to take the last steps before acceptance and publication

Thanks for the ping here! I am on it. There are just a couple last changes I want to get in before tagging the next (major) version. Should only take a couple more days.

danielskatz · 2025-04-01T17:42:34Z

👋 @burgholzer - Any progress to report?

burgholzer · 2025-04-07T07:56:54Z

👋 @burgholzer - Any progress to report?

Yes. Finally. Sorry for the long delays here.

The GitHub release (v3.0.0) is here: https://github.com/munich-quantum-toolkit/core/releases/tag/v3.0.0
The DOI from figshare is: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28740254.v1

Note that a couple of metadata have changed compared to the original submission (as listed in the issue description):

The repository has moved from https://github.com/cda-tum/mqt-core to https://github.com/munich-quantum-toolkit/core
The version is v3.0.0
The JOSS paper has been merged into the main branch where it resides in the paper directory
The respective codemeta.json has been updated to reflect the above.

Let me know if you need anything else at this point in time 😌

danielskatz · 2025-04-07T13:17:20Z

@editorialbot set https://github.com/munich-quantum-toolkit/core as repository

editorialbot · 2025-04-07T13:17:22Z

Done! repository is now https://github.com/munich-quantum-toolkit/core

danielskatz · 2025-04-07T13:17:38Z

@editorialbot set main as branch

editorialbot · 2025-04-07T13:17:40Z

Done! branch is now main

danielskatz · 2025-04-07T13:17:48Z

@editorialbot set v3.0.0 as version

editorialbot · 2025-04-07T13:17:52Z

Done! version is now v3.0.0

danielskatz · 2025-04-07T13:18:10Z

@editorialbot set 10.6084/m9.figshare.28740254.v1 as archive

editorialbot · 2025-04-07T13:18:13Z

Done! archive is now 10.6084/m9.figshare.28740254.v1

danielskatz · 2025-04-07T13:18:50Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2025-04-07T13:18:53Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2025-04-07T13:19:09Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1109/TCAD.2020.3032630 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-79837-6_14 is OK
- 10.23919/DATE54114.2022.9774631 is OK
- 10.1109/QCE52317.2021.00037 is OK
- 10.1109/ASP-DAC47756.2020.9045153 is OK
- 10.1109/ASP-DAC52403.2022.9712555 is OK
- 10.1109/DAC18072.2020.9218563 is OK
- 10.1145/3394885.3431590 is OK
- 10.1109/TCAD.2022.3197969 is OK
- 10.1109/QCE49297.2020.00051 is OK
- 10.1145/3505636 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.8092233 is OK
- 10.22331/q-2020-06-04-279 is OK
- 10.1109/VLSID57277.2023.00068 is OK
- 10.1145/3400302.3415622 is OK
- 10.1109/TCAD.2022.3182628 is OK
- 10.23919/DATE51398.2021.9474135 is OK
- 10.23919/DATE51398.2021.9474034 is OK
- 10.1145/3530776 is OK
- 10.1109/ASP-DAC47756.2020.9045711 is OK
- 10.1145/3394885.3431604 is OK
- 10.1109/DAC18072.2020.9218555 is OK
- 10.1145/3514355 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.06720 is OK
- 10.4204/EPTCS.318.14 is OK
- 10.1109/TCAD.2015.2459034 is OK
- 10.1109/QCE57702.2023.00095 is OK
- 10.1145/3489517.3530480 is OK
- 10.1145/3566097.3567932 is OK
- 10.1109/JETCAS.2022.3202204 is OK
- 10.1145/3593594 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2405.08810 is OK
- 10.1109/QCE57702.2023.00039 is OK
- 10.1088/2058-9565/ad33ac is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2311.14164 is OK
- 10.1088/2058-9565/ab8e92 is OK
- 10.1109/DAC18074.2021.9586191 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2012.13966 is OK
- 10.22331/q-2023-09-11-1108 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-15699-1_1 is OK
- 10.1109/ISCAS45731.2020.9180791 is OK
- 10.1109/QSW62656.2024.00013 is OK
- 10.1145/3491246 is OK
- 10.1007/978-981-15-6401-7_43-1 is OK
- 10.23919/DATE51398.2021.9474236 is OK
- 10.11578/DC.20210603.2 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2025-04-07T13:20:43Z

👋 @openjournals/csism-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#6591, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz · 2025-04-07T13:24:26Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2025-04-07T13:24:28Z

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2025-04-07T13:31:21Z

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Burgholzer
  given-names: Lukas
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4699-1316"
- family-names: Stade
  given-names: Yannick
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5785-2528"
- family-names: Peham
  given-names: Tom
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3434-7881"
- family-names: Wille
  given-names: Robert
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4993-7860"
contact:
- family-names: Burgholzer
  given-names: Lukas
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4699-1316"
doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.28740254.v1
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Burgholzer
    given-names: Lukas
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4699-1316"
  - family-names: Stade
    given-names: Yannick
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5785-2528"
  - family-names: Peham
    given-names: Tom
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3434-7881"
  - family-names: Wille
    given-names: Robert
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4993-7860"
  date-published: 2025-04-07
  doi: 10.21105/joss.07478
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 108
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 7478
  title: "MQT Core: The Backbone of the Munich Quantum Toolkit (MQT)"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07478"
  volume: 10
title: "MQT Core: The Backbone of the Munich Quantum Toolkit (MQT)"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot · 2025-04-07T13:31:25Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2025-04-07T13:31:26Z

🦋🦋🦋 👉 Bluesky post for this paper 👈 🦋🦋🦋

editorialbot · 2025-04-07T13:31:27Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.07478 joss-papers#6593
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07478
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

danielskatz · 2025-04-07T13:37:44Z

Congratulations to @burgholzer (Lukas Burgholzer) and co-authors on your publication!!

And thanks to @1ucian0, @edyounis, and @josh146 for reviewing!
JOSS depends on volunteers and we couldn't do this without you

editorialbot · 2025-04-07T13:37:46Z

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following

code snippets

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07478/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07478)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07478">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07478/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07478/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07478

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-open-journals

burgholzer · 2025-04-07T15:14:54Z

Congratulations to @burgholzer (Lukas Burgholzer) and co-authors on your publication!!

And thanks to @1ucian0, @edyounis, and @josh146 for reviewing! JOSS depends on volunteers and we couldn't do this without you

Thanks to everyone involved 🙏🏼
I just added the JOSS reference and citation information to the repository and the new patch release, including everything, is live at https://github.com/munich-quantum-toolkit/core 🎉

editorialbot added C++ CMake Python review Track: 7 (CSISM) Computer science, Information Science, and Mathematics labels Nov 13, 2024

editorialbot assigned danielskatz Nov 13, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Nov 13, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: MQT Core: The Backbone of the Munich Quantum Toolkit (MQT) #7446

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Apr 7, 2025

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Apr 7, 2025

danielskatz closed this as completed Apr 7, 2025

[REVIEW]: MQT Core: The Backbone of the Munich Quantum Toolkit (MQT) #7478

[REVIEW]: MQT Core: The Backbone of the Munich Quantum Toolkit (MQT) #7478

Comments

editorialbot commented Nov 13, 2024 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Nov 13, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 13, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 13, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 13, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 13, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 13, 2024

danielskatz commented Nov 13, 2024

josh146 commented Nov 14, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @josh146

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

danielskatz commented Nov 24, 2024

danielskatz commented Nov 24, 2024

1ucian0 commented Nov 27, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @1ucian0

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

1ucian0 commented Nov 27, 2024

danielskatz commented Nov 27, 2024

1ucian0 commented Nov 27, 2024

1ucian0 commented Nov 27, 2024

burgholzer commented Nov 28, 2024

burgholzer commented Nov 28, 2024 • edited Loading

danielskatz commented Nov 30, 2024

danielskatz commented Nov 30, 2024

danielskatz commented Nov 30, 2024

edyounis commented Dec 2, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @edyounis

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

burgholzer commented Dec 2, 2024

burgholzer commented Dec 2, 2024

danielskatz commented Mar 19, 2025

danielskatz commented Mar 24, 2025

burgholzer commented Mar 24, 2025

danielskatz commented Apr 1, 2025

burgholzer commented Apr 7, 2025

danielskatz commented Apr 7, 2025

editorialbot commented Apr 7, 2025

danielskatz commented Apr 7, 2025

editorialbot commented Apr 7, 2025

danielskatz commented Apr 7, 2025

editorialbot commented Apr 7, 2025

danielskatz commented Apr 7, 2025

editorialbot commented Apr 7, 2025

danielskatz commented Apr 7, 2025

editorialbot commented Apr 7, 2025

editorialbot commented Apr 7, 2025

editorialbot commented Apr 7, 2025

danielskatz commented Apr 7, 2025

editorialbot commented Apr 7, 2025

editorialbot commented Apr 7, 2025

editorialbot commented Apr 7, 2025

editorialbot commented Apr 7, 2025

editorialbot commented Apr 7, 2025

danielskatz commented Apr 7, 2025

editorialbot commented Apr 7, 2025

burgholzer commented Apr 7, 2025

editorialbot commented Nov 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

josh146 commented Nov 14, 2024 •

edited

Loading

1ucian0 commented Nov 27, 2024 •

edited

Loading

burgholzer commented Nov 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

edyounis commented Dec 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading